tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 30 13:20:04 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Okrand on /jatlh/

At 08:28 AM 6/30/97 -0700, Holtej wrote:
>
>Some more from Okrand on MSN.
>
[pe'...]
>> 
>> The object of  jatlh "speak" is that which is spoken.  Thus, it's OK to say
>> "speak a language," for example:
>> 
>> 	tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh "you speak Klingon"
>> 	(tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," Dajatlh "you speak it")
>> 
>> But it's also OK to say "speak an address, speak a lecture," for example:
>> 
>> 	SoQ Dajatlh "you speak an address" or, more colloquially, "you deliver an 
>> address" or "you make a speech"
>> 	(SoQ "speech, lecture, address," Dajatlh "you speak it")
>> 
>> To say simply:
>> 
>> 	jatlh "he/she speaks"
>> 
>> implies "he/she speaks it," where "it" is a language or a lecture or
>> whatever.
>>
[pe'...] 
>> There's another wrinkle to this.  The verb jatlh can also be used when
>> giving direct quotations:
>> 
>> 	tlhIngan jIH jatlh "he/she says, 'I am a Klingon'"
>> 	(tlhIngan "Klingon," jIH "I," jatlh "speak")
>> 
>> 	jatlh tlhIngan jIH "he/she says, 'I am a Klingon'"
>> 
>> (With verbs of saying, such as jatlh, the phrase that is being said or
>> cited may come before or after the verb.)
>> 
>> If the speaker is first or second person, the pronominal prefix indicating
>> "no object" is used:

So it looks like charghwI' was mostly right about {jatlh}.  But I'm still
wondering about something.  According to the first part of MO's reply, all the
following should be valid.

   tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh.       I speak Klingon
   SoQ vIjatlh.                I speak (~give) a speech.
   mu' vIjatlh.                I say a word.
   mu'tlhegh vIjatlh.           I say a sentence.
     (He did say the object of {jatlh} could be a language a lecture, or
       _whatever_).

OK, so consider the last two sentences.  I should be able to use noun apposition
to specify, for example, the word I actually said:

   mu' <nuqDaq> vIjatlh.       I say the word "Where".

This would be parallel to other types of apposition, eg. {paq <tlhIngan tigh>
vIlaD}.  Now, I believe that in apposition, one can omit the head noun if
it's understood from context.  So, you could say

    <tlhIngan tIgh> vIlaD

Omitting the {paq} as understood.  If so, presumably you could say

    <nuqDaq> vIjatlh.

Omitting the {mu'} as understood.  So, consider my last sentence:

    mu'tlhegh vIjatlh.         I say a sentence.

Using apposition, could I specify the sentence I actually said:
   
    mu'tlhegh <SoH 'Iv> vIjatlh.  I say the sentence "Who are you?"

Omitting what is understood from context, could I produce:

    <SoH 'Iv> vIjatlh.

Hence, my confusion.  The sentences {<nuqDaq> vIjatlh} and {<SoH 'IV> vIjatlh}
seem correct, if the logic chain above is correct, but both contradict what
MO says about direct quotes later in the same post.  In this case, the sentences
should be {nuqDaq jIjatlh} and {SoH 'Iv jIjatlh}.  There apparently is some
cross-over point at which one set of rules for {jatlh} ends and the other
begins.

Just a first thought on this topic, which we may want to keep in mind as we
puzzle out exactly what MO meant.

-- ter'eS

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711

Back to archive top level